Steve Shadle writes:
>Carol -- How is the title appearing elsewhere on the piece over the 2004
I agree with Steve that you have to consider how the title is presented
elsewhere on issues where chief source title varies.
I find myself wanting to give people the whole megileh when this type of
situation comes up (reviewing appropriate sections of CCM, AACR2, LCRI, CSB etc.),
but it's impossible without "seeing the whites of its eyes", as the woman who
trained me years ago used to say about holding the actual items in hand.
I suggest that serials librarians who do not catalog, or don't feel
comfortable cataloging originally, get a hold of photocopies of the relevant sections
of the standard documentation so they can make these decisions more
efficiently. At least get the guidelines for choosing among various sources, and the
relevant pages in CCM on major and minor variations. I think then, the procedure
I gave in my earlier message will probably work fine. We used it
successfully at the Port Authority of NY & NJ library back in the early 80's when nothing
seemed certain. I'll never forget how, when a new issue of the CSB arrived,
we'd study it like we were Kremlin-watchers. "What do you think they mean by
... ?" etc. etc.
Some people are pleased that more and more stuff is being left up to
"cataloger's judgment". My feeling is that in the shared environment like CONSER/OCLC
it can make it even worse if you're not a participant, because variations are
unpredictable. And, it's hard to make a serials copy cataloging unit run if
you don't have simple, clear, finite guidelines.